Higher ed associations, public health organizations and other groups and individuals pummeled the White House’s proposed rule that would, among other things, give political appointees sweeping control over federal grant making. Members of Congress have spoken out against it, and lawyers are threatening lawsuits.
In all, critics are denouncing the proposal’s elevation of appointees’ “independent judgment” over scientific peer review and the many other ways the rule could enable Trump officials and members of future presidential administrations to replace researchers’ decisions on which of their peers’ scientific projects should be funded with the whims of whichever politicians are in power at the time.
As of Monday evening, the final day the public could comment on the proposal, the White House Office of Management and Budget had received at least 300,000 comments. The volume came despite a relatively short comment period: 45 days on the more than 400-page proposal. Multiple groups called for extending the time for comments, including COGR, an organization that advocates for researchers and universities on the federal level and goes only by its acronym.
New Push to Fix Calculus Bottleneck
